Nazi Collaborator or Hero?

Claude Lansmann’s film, The Last of the Unjust, explores the moral ramifications of Benjamin Murmelstein’s pact with the devil.

Claude Lanzmann, the French documentary filmmaker who directed Shoah, the 1985 widely praised nine and a half hour movie on the Holocaust presenting testimonies by selected survivors, witnesses, and German perpetrators, has once again returned to the same theme that continues to fascinate him, but from a totally different perspective.

This time he focuses on one man – and on one profound question relating to the moral ambiguity of evil.

The Last of the Unjust is the product of lengthy conversations Lanzsmann had with a remarkable survivor. Benjamin Murmelstein, a Viennese rabbi, clearly brilliant and extremely capable, was first drafted by Adolf Eichmann to write reports to the Nazi authorities. Later he was put in charge of a program ostensibly to permit Jews to emigrate but primarily intended to financially fill Eichmann’s pockets. Eventually he was made an “Elder of the Jews” at the notorious concentration camp at Thereseinstadt, where he himself was prisoner, following the two Elders preceding him who were both brutally executed with bullets to the backs of their heads.

To follow his story, as the film does – admittedly from Murmelstein’s point of view as there is no one else interviewed to contest him – is to come face-to-face with perplexing challenges to our clearly defined concepts of morality.

Murmelstein helped the Nazis as they ingeniously used Theresienstadt, a cruelly fictional paradise, in propaganda films to the world.

Murmelstein was a collaborator. It is he himself who chose as self-description the words of the film’s title, The Last of the Unjust, an obvious wordplay on the title of André Schwarz-Bart’s powerful award-winning novel The Last of The Just about the 36 righteous souls whose existence justifies the purpose of humankind to God. Murmelstein helped the Nazis as they ingeniously used Theresienstadt, a cruelly fictional paradise, in propaganda films to the world, deceptively depicting it as a Potemkin like village given by Hitler as a gift to the Jews in which they could enjoy all the amenities of a prosperous, fulfilling and beautiful life. Used as a showcase for a visit by the Red Cross, and the site of a film showing happy Jews at work and play, it was in reality a concentration camp where disease and starvation killed nearly 100,000 Jews due to horrible overcrowding and appalling sanitary conditions and for many but the first stop in “relocation to the east” where they would be brutally exterminated.

These facts were enough to have Murmelstein fiercely condemned by many after the war. Though acquitted on the charge of collaborating with the Nazis by a tough Czech court, he never set foot in Israel in order to avoid facing a second trial. Gershom Scholem, the renowned Israeli historian and philosopher, publicly called for him to be punished by hanging – although, as pointedly noted by Murmelstein in the film, Scholem ironically pleaded that Israel spare Eichmann’s life after the court found him guilty of his role in planning and carrying out the Nazi “final solution.”

And yet… Here is where the film forces us to begin the tortuous process of reevaluating moral choices in the face of competing options that offer no satisfactory resolution. How can we find the correct balance between heroism and expediency? How much should the crime of collaboration be mitigated if its purpose is to achieve the better of two nightmarish solutions? Is there room on an ethical balance sheet to vindicate assisting the wicked in order to attain a somewhat more favorable outcome for at least some of the innocent?

In short, can we forgive or perhaps even to some extent approve the choice Murmelstein made to respond to the Nazi regime’s goal of genocide by assuming the persona of “a calculating realist”- making a pact with the devil in order to somewhat diminish his power for evil?

Through his efforts – and his cooperation with Eichmann – he saved the lives of 120,000 Jews.

Slowly but quite effectively we become drawn in by Murmelstein’s justifications for his actions. It is true that through his efforts – and his cooperation with Eichmann – he saved the lives of 120,000 Jews by arranging their emigration to Palestine and other places of haven. He recounts with gusto how he was able to get 2,000 inmates out of the Dachau concentration camp and send them to Portugal and Spain via occupied France. Though he could easily have emigrated to London himself, he stayed behind in Vienna because he felt he “had something to accomplish – a mission.”

Given the impossible task of serving as “King of the Jews” in Theresienstadt, Murmelstein worked to “embellish” its facilities, helping to eradicate typhoid and somewhat improving its structure for the sick and the aged – even though that meant the perpetuation of a lie for the sake of propaganda. Putting glass in windows, he insisted, kept the people inside warmer. As to the propaganda film he cooperated with, Murmelstein says, "If they showed us, they wouldn't kill us. That was my logic, and I hope it was correct."

By the end of the film, it is clear that Lanzsmann has become convinced. The closing scenes show him putting his arm around Murmelstein, telling him he considers him a friend.

But it is we, the viewers, who must make our own judgments.

Jewish Taskmasters

Walking out of the theater I heard a couple, taken by Murmelstein’s powerful charisma and intellect, saying they could not understand why, instead of being condemned, he wasn’t proclaimed a hero. To my mind that was a severe overreaction.

There is a biblical precedent to the Nazi genius of appointing Jews over other Jews to be complicit in their own enslavement. The Torah tells us that when the Egyptians forced the Hebrews to make bricks for their construction projects, they set over them taskmasters and officers. The taskmasters were Egyptians, the officers Hebrews. The ones directly in charge of the Hebrew slaves and tasked with making certain the full quota of work was produced were taken from their own people.

The text goes on to tell us: “And the officers of the children of Israel whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had appointed over them were beaten, saying, 'Why have you not completed your quota to make bricks like the day before yesterday, neither yesterday nor today?'" [Exodus 5:14] The Midrash explains that the Hebrew officers refused to comply with the strict orders of their masters. They would not beat the workers assigned to them to make them fulfill the terrible burden of their quotas. They chose to be beaten themselves rather than to oppress their brethren.

The Sages tell us that a remarkable thing happened years later to reward them: These were the very people who merited to be selected as members of the first Sanhedrin. It was upon them that “some of the spirit that was upon Moses was taken and placed on them – as it is said ‘Gather to me 70 men of the elders of Israel’[Numbers 11:16] of those about whom you know the good that they did in Egypt, i.e. the officers who preferred to suffer themselves rather than to impose pain upon others.” [Commentary of Rashi, Exodus 5:14]

Murmelstein was the first to admit that he was no saint in administering the harsh edicts imposed by the Nazis.

Jewish heroes cannot persecute fellow Jews, no matter the consequences. That is what earns for them the respect and admiration of our people. And any trade-offs for personal security or special privileges cast their actions into serious question.

Murmelstein was the first to admit that he was no saint in administering the harsh edicts imposed by the Nazis. In a memorable line in the film he quotes Isaac Bashevis Singer as saying “There were no saints in the Holocaust; only martyrs.” But that is not true. Those who are familiar with Holocaust literature know of many thousands of holy and pious souls whose deeds were saintly beyond any human comprehension. The truly heroic figures could never have complied with the commands of their oppressors, no matter how much could be gained from compromising with evil.

There is no doubt that aiding an evil to subvert a greater evil cannot leave us unstained by the crime committed, no matter how noble our intentions. Murmelstein understood that when he referred to himself as the last of the unjust.

More, we will always be left to wonder whether the murder of six million could have become possible without any cooperation from its victims.

But truth be told the bottom line is that the Holocaust, being unfathomable, makes it impossible for us to offer a fair judgment. In this Murmelstein was correct: “We may condemn but we cannot judge.” And what Claude Landzmann in this unforgettable film has shown us is the profound difficulty of impugning guilt to any survivors – because there is no way we can possibly put ourselves in their place or realistically answer how we might have acted in their stead.

About the Author

Rabbi Benjamin Blech, a frequent contributor to Aish, is a Professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University and an internationally recognized educator, religious leader, and lecturer. Author of 19 highly acclaimed books with combined sales of over a half million copies, his newest, Redemption- Then and Now, commentaries and essays on the Passover Haggada is is presently available on Amazon and your local Judaica book store. See his website at rabbibenjaminblech.com.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 31

(25)
KENNETH HABER,
February 24, 2014 3:02 PM

Hanging Eichman was the right think to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My battalion freed Theresienstadt concentration camp.Before joining the Russian Army,I was in three Ghettos andI saw the unbelievable, people giving up their parents ,trying to safe their children. As for Nazis,there should be no mercy.HANG THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(24)
Eli,
February 23, 2014 4:08 AM

We would need to know details about what bad things he did

I think that prior to judging the situation, we would need to know what he exactly did to aid the Nazis and balance this with the possibility that he saved Jews. The article doesn't help me in this regard.

(23)
STUART SCHOENBERGER,
February 20, 2014 5:30 PM

Ambiguty?

Regrettably, Rabbi Bleich's article does not present the moral issue in in the cross hairs as presented by the film. I have read previously about the appointed Judenrat and Kapos. Fortunately, this is not a regurgitation Arendt's thesis that the difference between good and evil is a blur and inconsequential. Choices have consequences. Heroes extraordinarily surmount the odds. Most of us are only within a normal range of such. oNE MIGHT BETTER appreciate the situation by reading a non-holacaust work by Solizhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch. The real issue is not the choice he made, but how ultimately such choices degrade the victims and the survivors.

(22)
Jerry Meents,
February 18, 2014 9:30 PM

Not all collaborators have saved on life.

If all the collaborators would have saved 120.000, then mayby some of my family would have been saved, in stead being murdered, And I at 83 year swould not have the pain in side of me.

(21)
Margarita,
February 18, 2014 4:20 PM

most complicated article

most complicated article, sometimes i wonder what would happen if we would vote on our appreciation of the story....................

(20)
Beverly Kurtin,
February 17, 2014 8:47 PM

Fascism's legacy

There is no way that I can judge that man or anyone else who decided to save their skins instead of being killed. I would like to think that I would have had the courage to take a bullet instead of cooperating with the Nazis, but Baruch Hashem, I hope to never have to make a decision like that.I cannot excuse him, however. What he did for the good number for number cannot totally erase what he did.We had a survivor of the Holocaust speak with our shul last Shabbat. She came face-to-face with the butcher Mengele who did not let her go with her mother, thus saving her life. Does that forgive that beast? NO.She said something that I already knew, that is that the United States is perilously close to losing its status as a democracy. That did not surprise me because those who are involved in the BDS movement HONOR a Fascist group of people, the group of dictators who run the Palestinians over the democratic State of Israel. When Fascists are made out to be heroes, then what is the hope for democracy?The late Justice Brandeis said, in essence, that we can either have a democracy or large amounts of money in the hands of a few people, but we cannot have both. When 85 people have as much money as the lower 42% of the rest of the WORLD, we are in danger of losing our freedom and our freedom of speech.Eichmann got what he deserved, too bad the rest of the world who supported the Nazis haven't.

(19)
tatyana,
February 17, 2014 8:01 PM

I have read ALL comments and have to say, I'm on a side of those who are careful to judge, and like the article as everything else that Rabbi Bleck writes. Who are we to understand! have you ever been G-g forbit in a schoes of a person facing even close dilemma?! And how did he lives his life after all? I can only emagine... If he's to be punished I'm sure he punished himself every day. My heart is aching for him. BTW I've lost an aunt and other relatieves in Shoa...but still... Please don't judge.

(18)
Zero Equals Infinity,
February 17, 2014 2:22 PM

Intent and honesty are essential in our judgments.

"There is no doubt that aiding an evil to subvert a greater evil cannot leave us unstained by the crime committed, no matter how noble our intentions. Murmelstein understood that when he referred to himself as the last of the unjust."

Whether judging myself or another, both my intent and the honesty to which I subject myself are essential. Unless I parse away all the dross of distraction and justification, and look clearly into the abyss without blinking, it will be impossible to know whether I have acted in good faith.

Even so, the stain remains, it plagues and sticks to the soul - a hidden and dark tattoo from the reliquary of evil.

(17)
F Callen,
February 17, 2014 12:31 PM

Hidden from the western world?

The western world knew about the Holocaust through plenty of other channels and did nothing directly about it. Indeed most western countries were further complicit in it by closing their doors - and the doors of Eretz Israel - to European (and North African) Jews. All the Terezin propaganda films did was soothe conscience of governments for decisions they had already taken and that they never altered, even as the full truth of places like Auschwitz was reported to them by some of the many heroes of the Holocaust.

(16)
David,
February 17, 2014 12:14 PM

I don't know...

Easy to sit in judgment, but would you have done better in his place? I doubt that most of us could really answer that.

Beverly Kurtin,
February 17, 2014 8:35 PM

You're right, of course

There is no way to judge this man except by THE ultimate Judge, Hashem.That said, I hope that I would prefer a bullet to the head while praying that I nor anyone else would ever be put in that position again.This past Shabbat, we were privileged to hear a survivor of Auschwitz. She is 86 and she said an unusual thing: "On my deathbed I want to know that I helped people to forgive anyone who has hurt them, replace hate with love.She was about 15 when she was taken to that place of horror. She said that she was walking hand-in-hand with her mother when she faced Mengele. She turned with her mother but the beast turned her the other way, saving her life. Within the hour, he mother was ash.Although I was alive during the Holocaust, thanks to my grandparents having come to America, I was born in the U.S. Knowing that I was alive, however, gives me an undeserved feeling of guilt.

(15)
Erick,
February 17, 2014 5:31 AM

He is a collaborator helping to kill people.

It is naive to think that he saved other Jews. Germans were famously corrupted and many of them used Jews to fill their pockets. If not him, other Jew would become a " king" and go for collaboration. Bottom line is he helped the evil, not just by killing, but hiding the truth from the western world. It was his personal choice and I condemn him for this.Lansmann is full of hipocrisy for trying to justify such action.I well remember that in his Shoah documentary he condemned poor undeducated peasants for much much less.

(14)
Karl,
February 17, 2014 5:17 AM

uniform code of military justice

Having served in the US Military, if I or any member aided in the enemies war time activities you would have been shot or locked away. Clearly he was a civilian, still doesn't absolve him, no matter how you rationalize this.

(13)
Raisy,
February 17, 2014 3:18 AM

Judgment

As Rabbi Blech points out, it is in the holy words of the Torah that we are told that the Jewish overseers in Egypt refused to hurt their brethren--even if they might have rationalized that urging the Jews to fill their quotas would mitigate the harsh consequences meted out by the Egyptians for those who did not complete their tasks.

They allowed themselves to be beaten.

That is how the Torah describes a righteous, holy human being. No excuses for harming another.

I cry for the horror of the Holocaust that presented such horrific choices to men.

I don't know what I would have done. I can only hope I never have to make choices such as these.

(12)
R David Kryder,
February 17, 2014 2:56 AM

...lesser of two evils....

When we choose ...the lesser of two evils.... we still choose evil.

(11)
Don Krausz,
February 16, 2014 11:17 PM

Resistance was not a matter of acquiring guns, but of retaining one's humanity.

Rivkai Green's comment is not based on fact. Despite the dehumanizing conditions of hunger, fear and despair, most of the inmates in the many concentration camp barracks where I was did their utmost to retain their humanity, despite having become emotionally unresponsive. I am referring to camps where people perished in their tens of thousands. This applied to Death Marches too.

(10)
Eli Willner,
February 16, 2014 10:21 PM

Where is "halacha" in this article?

The author is remiss in his neglecting to discuss the role of halacha in dealing with these difficult issues. There *is* a right and a wrong, and absolute standard, and on that basis we *can* judge. Unfortunately Murmelstein lacked the credentials and the desire to make decisions on the basis of halacha. Whatever his motivations he therefore unquestionably erred in matters of life and death and deserves to be condemned.

(9)
Anonymous,
February 16, 2014 9:32 PM

Same issues raised in Eichmann trial

The issue of complicity by some Jewish community leaders with the Nazis was raised by Hannah Arendt in her coverage of the Eichmann trial for The New Yorker magazine in 1961. She wrote that the Holocaust might have been averted or greatly diminished without such cooperation, and for that she was roundly condemned by much of the Jewish world. From reaction to the film biography of her released in 2012, it seems that issue remains just as unresolved today. I think Rabbi Blech is wise to conclude "that the Holocaust, being unfathomable, makes it impossible for us to offer a fair judgment ... there is no way we can possibly put ourselves in their place or realistically answer how we might have acted in their stead."

(8)
Anonymous,
February 16, 2014 9:01 PM

Extraordinarily well-written summation

This is an excellent presentation of the dilemma. So far, the comments have failed to grasp the depth of the author's comments.

(7)
Anonymous,
February 16, 2014 8:52 PM

you judge too fast rabbi Blech

I'm sure you know the quote far better than I do from Piekei Avot: "don't judge a man until you have walked twenty paces in his shoes". How can you so easily and harshly judge a fellow Jew, faced with the hardest of decisions in the worst of hells? Shame on us all that allow ourselves the luxury of passing judgement on victims of The holocaust. Are we so certain that we would act any better in the same circumstances?

(6)
Silky,
February 16, 2014 7:14 PM

We are not able to judge

I find this situation similar to Kastner (I forget his first name) who is written about in Ben Hecht's book, Perfidy. On the one hand, Kastner saved thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Jews. On the other hand, he helped deliver Hungarian Jewry without a fight, to the Nazis. My uncle was on the (im)famous Kastner Transport where 1,500 Jews were taken by train to safety. My mother was on a train that instead of going to Auschwitz like the other transport that day, went to a labor camp where there was no "Selection". It was no picnic , but children like my mother and old people like her grandparents did survive.

We humans, cannot judge what was the correct thing to do. It is something best left for the True Judge.

(5)
jacques,
February 16, 2014 6:26 PM

he saved a few but help the criminals to cover their crime

His title as a rabbi should have taught him to be in front of his community and not hide behind it while a snake is biting off the head of its children. By appeasing the worst enemy of the Jews he prolonged the horrible crime that destroyed 6 millions worlds. Had he not helped these Nazi may be the world would have act against the camps. I would not like to be in this devil's shoe when he finally meets all these kids that perished under his temporary boss the Nazis. For one thing is sure the length of one's life is not a sign of one's blessing. This so called rabbi will have to answer to a higher force then our human capacity.

(4)
Rivkai Green,
February 16, 2014 5:05 PM

Correction: You may neither condemn nor judge

I find it offensive to the point of repulsive that anyone who did not live through those times dares to offer up any moral judgement. You have NO RIGHT from your comfortable post Shoah world to suggest how anyone should or should not have behaved under those exact circumstances. I am appalled and disappointed by the tone of this article. Heaven forbid!

Betty G.,
February 16, 2014 8:46 PM

Reply to Rivka

Did you not read the last paragraph?"But truth be told the bottom line is that the Holocaust, being unfathomable, makes it impossible for us to offer a fair judgment. In this Murmelstein was correct: “We may condemn but we cannot judge.” And what Claude Landzmann in this unforgettable film has shown us is the profound difficulty of impugning guilt to any survivors – because there is no way we can possibly put ourselves in their place or realistically answer how we might have acted in their stead."

chaims,
February 16, 2014 10:15 PM

I so agree with you

Many times impossible decisions had to be made with absolutely no time to think - and then became impossible to retract or to change directions once they entrapped you. And even if there was time to - of which there wash't - there was no historical precedent for any human being to be able to make any informed decisions. How dare we judge. I for one am more than happy let the Almighty Judge judge.

yehudit,
February 17, 2014 7:27 AM

incorrect

Rabbi Blech did not judge Murmelstein, as is seen in his concluding paragraph. His only "judgement" was reserved for the opinion of the two moviegoers whom he overheard labelling Murmelstein a "hero". Even then Rabbi Blech didn't stoop to condemnation, rather his essay opens a necessary, if unpleasant, discussion.

(3)
Bobby5000,
February 16, 2014 4:29 PM

Why is he different than the average German

German supporters of the Jews were jailed or shot and many Germans said that helped Nazi policies because to do otherwise would have gotten them or their families killed. Why is Murmelstein any different. Germans said they helped the Nazis because they had to, the same argument Murmelstein profers. Indeed, Murmelstein helped the Nazis effectively kill more Jews than the average German. Jews suspected the Germans, they didn't suspect their fellow Rabbis who counseled cooperation helping thousands to enter the death camps without resistance or problems.

Had he counseled resistance, getting guns, burning buildings, using resistance, far fewer would have died, and German resources would have been to have been used to battle the Jews as in the Lodz ghetto uprising. He would have caused far less suffering had he taken a gun and murdered 20 children.

Applying the same standards we do to Germans and other collaborators, this man deserves every condemnation we can level. Saying I watched out for myself, is no defense- for a Nazi or a Jew.

Anonymous,
February 16, 2014 8:55 PM

Response to (3) Bobby 5000

Do you seriously believe that a few Jews with few weapons would have made a serious difference in the German massacre of millions? Did you read the article? God forbid I ever have to make the decisions Murmelstein (and others) had to make...Have you been in that position? I doubt it. Don't jump to conclusions about events in which you had no part.

Barbara,
February 17, 2014 2:04 AM

Applying the same standards as we do to Germans? REALLY?

We cannot use the term 'standards' here because this was a prime example of the absence of standards among a people determined to tolerate evil. It cost many civilians their lives as bombs fell upon those who didn't stop the evil within and then allowed it to invade neighboring countries. Why didn't the Germans do what Norwegians did and have everyone put on a Jewish Star to slow the transport of Jews to the camps? Why didn't the Germans sit in the streets outside their homes in a Ghandi-like move in a strike against the violence to their neighbors?

It is because they hoped the internal purges common to fascist governments would end with the Jews, Catholic clergy, homosexuals and gypsies. Other citizens have tolerated persecution of minorities since time immemorial. Even the Greeks finally destroyed the Jewish Temple (Babylonian Captivity) and THEY were supposedly sympathetic to permitting conquered people to retain their national identities within their own 'city-states'.

There are Jews living and dying in the streets of the USA today. Have you heard a single voice protesting this in the mainstream media? All religions are under fire today but it is primarily synagogues (reform, reconstructionist and conservative) that are closing their doors and not American churches.

Kristallnacht has occurred here in the USA already with many standards being thrown out of the windows. However, as these are 'E-windows' leaving most people warm at home, no one sees the shards of glass embedded in the backs of Jewish cancer patients, closed Jewish businesses, more than two thousand converts to Christianity counted in the Pew Survey.... What should we be doing now?

(2)
Anonymous,
February 16, 2014 4:14 PM

Collaborating with evil for the greater good.

I think that this complex moral issue is part of the reason I am drawn to the novels of Vince Flynn--whose CIA agents do all kinds of nasty things to prevent terrorist attacks. Also, the new TV series, Chicago PD, features the character of Detective Voight. Just when we are convinced that he is a "dirty cop"--another event occurs that makes us wonder that perhaps he is doing the right thing: compromising with evil for the greater good that he might be able to do in the future.

(1)
Anonymous,
February 16, 2014 3:14 PM

He is but a man.

By your own reporting, he was tried in a "tough Czech court" and acquitted.
He had a chance to save himself, and didn't, presumably because in his mind, staying, he was saving his people.
He has voluntarily exiled himself from Israel. Is this not the harshest of punishments?
He is a Rabbi, a jew, and our brother. He did his best. He is only human.

I always loved the story of Jonah and the whale. Why do we read it during the afternoon service of Yom Kippur?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Let's recap the story: God tells Jonah to go to Ninveh and to prophesy that in 40 days, God will destroy the city. Instead, Jonah goes to Jaffa, boards a ship, and sails for Tarshish. A great storm arises. Frightened, Jonah goes to sleep in the ship's hold. The sailors somehow recognize that Jonah is responsible for the storm. They throw him overboard, and the sea becomes calm.

A great fish swallows Jonah. Then three days later, God commands the fish to spit Jonah back out upon dry land. God tells Jonah, "Let's try it again. Go to Ninveh and tell them in 40 days I will destroy the city."

The story is a metaphor for our struggle for clarity. Jonah is the soul. The soul is assigned to sanctify the world, and draw it close to God. But we are seduced by the world's beauty. (Jaffa in Hebrew means "beauty.") The ship is the body, the sea is the world, and the storm is life's pains and troubles. God hopes confrontation with mortality will inspire us to examine our lives. But Jonah's is the more common response - we go to sleep (have a beer, turn on the television). The sailors throw Jonah overboard - this is death. The fish that swallows Jonah is the grave. Jonah is spat back upon the land - reincarnation. And the Almighty tells us to try again. "Go sanctify the world and bring it close to God."

Each of us is born with an opportunity and a challenge. We each have unique gifts to offer the world and unique challenges to perfect ourselves. If we leave the task unfinished the first time, we get a second chance. Jonah teaches us that repentance can reverse a harsh decree. If the residents of Ninveh had the ability to correct their mistakes and do teshuva, how much more so do we have the ability to correct our former mistakes and do teshuva.

(source: "The Bible for the Clueless But Curious," by Rabbi Nachum Braverman)

In 1948, Egypt launched a large-scale offensive against the Negev region of Israel. This was part of the War of Independence, an attack by five Arab armies designed to "drive the Jews into the sea." Though the Jews were under-armed, untrained, and few in number, through ingenuity and perseverance they staved off the attacks and secured the borders. Yet the price was high -- Israel lost 6,373 of its people, a full one percent of the Jewish population of Israel at the time.

And what does teshuvah consist of? [Repentance to the degree] that the One Who knows all that is hidden will testify that he will never again repeat this sin(Maimonides, Laws of Teshuvah 2:2).

"How can this be?" ask the commentaries. "Inasmuch as man always has free choice to do good or evil, to sin or not to sin, how can God testify that a person will never repeat a particular sin? Is this not a repudiation of one's free will?"

The answer to this came to me at a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, at which the speaker, a man who had been sober for twenty-one years, said, "The man I was drank. The man I was will drink again. But now I am a different man."

A sin does not occur in a vacuum. A person who is devout does not abruptly decide to eat treifah. A sin occurs when a person is in such a state that a particular act is not anathema to him.

Consequently, repentance is not complete if one merely regrets having done wrong. One must ask, "How did this sin ever come about? In what kind of a state was I that permitted me to commit this sin?"

True repentance thus consists of changing one's character to the point where, as the person is now, one can no longer even consider doing the forbidden act. Of course, the person's character may deteriorate - and if it does, he may sin again.

God does not testify that the person will never repeat the sin, but rather that his degree of repentance and correction of his character defects are such that, as long as he maintains his new status, he will not commit that sin.

Today I shall...

try to understand how I came to do those things that I regret having done, and bring myself to a state where such acts will be alien to me.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...